FTTR is too expensive. Maybe you can try CTTR!

Recently, FTTR has become a hot topic in the communication industry. In our last article, we introduced the concept of FTTR and the difference between FTTR and FTTH.

Today, let’s talk about another scheme similar to FTTR.

In the FTTR solution, key devices include FTTR gateways and FTTR slave terminals. The gateway hardware of FTTR consists of ONU part and a Mini single-port OLT part. The ONU part in the gateway run ONU function supporting 10GE PON protocol and connecting to OLT in the Operator’s PON network. The single-port OLT part in the gateway provide user side PON port  for indoor networking with other FTTRs slave terminals.  The fiber network in the FTTR gateway and slave is based on the GPON standard. Both gateway and FTTR slave terminals can provide WIFI access, and support EasyMesh, suppport fix and wireless backhaul .

FTTR is a good indoor networking scheme, but the high cost may be a problem. The price of one gateway plus four slaver FTTR bundle even more than $600. Whether the cost is borne by the operator or the user, we have to admit that it is expensive. So is there another solution? The cost is lower, but it can achieve the networking effect similar to FTTR.

Based on C-Data’s technology reserve, I think there is a solution that meets this need, I call it CTTR(Coax to the Room).

CTTR is the conversion of transmission media from optical fibers to coaxial cables. The gateway (called Master in CTTR) and the terminal (Slaver) are networked by the EOC protocol (HomePlug AV).Because optical fibers are replaced by coaxial cables, there is no need for optical components in the equipment, and coaxial cables are easier to construct than optical cables, it has advantage in cost.


I expanded the table of “What is different of FTTR & FTTH”, and added a CTTR column.

FTTR CTTR Ethernet(UTP) Wireless
Transmission Stability High High High Low
Bandwidth High

Gigabit shared


Gigabit shared




Depends on the quality of the wireless link

Range Sufficient for home

(To be defined)

Sufficient for home

(<40dB Link loss )

<100m Uncertain

(depends on channel)

Manageable Could be managed

(To be defined)

Could be managed by Master No No
Architecture Star & Tree Star & Tree Star & Bus
EasyMesh Wireless or Wire(Fiber) Wireless or Wire(Coaxial Cable) Wireless or Wire(UTP) Wireless
Number of supported terminals 8 (For Home application);

64 (For dense apartment building and office application)

Limited by PON protocol and hardware of Gateway


Limited by Homeplug Protocol

NA Limited by hardware of AC

If you are interested in the scenarios FTTR involves, but you want a solution that is cheaper than FTTR, we can disscuss and promote the CTTR solution together.From the table, we can see that FTTR and CTTR both support star and tree topology, which is suitable for different types of housing networking and better than UTP networking scheme. Moreover, both FTTR and CTTR have a large network range, which can meet the networking needs of families and even buildings. In terms of bandwidth, it can provide stable Gigabit sharing.

0 replies

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *